93-4-1 Public Hearing to Consider the Revision of 001 Emission Control Requirements to Mitigate the Impact of Transported Pollutants on Ozone Concentrations in Downwind Areas.

93-4-2 Public Meeting to Consider a Status Report on --- the Use of Market Incentives for Consumer Products.

*Off-street parking is available in the parking lot to the westand adjacent to 2020 L Street. Enter this lot from L Street or20th Street. Overflow parking is available in the parking lotacross the street from 2020 L on the UPPER LEVEL ONLY. Enterthis lot from 20th Street. The cost for all day parking in theselots is $2.00. After parking in either lot, see the SecurityOfficer in the lobby at 2020 L to make payment (exact changeplease).

ITEM NO.: 93-4-1

Public Hearing to Consider the Revision of Emission ControlRequirements to Mitigate the Impact of Transported Pollutants onOzone Concentrations in Downwind Areas.

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the proposed amendments to the Board's transportmitigation regulations.

DISCUSSION

Last year key features of the California Clean Air Act of 1988(Act) were modified, creating a need to revisit the permittingcomponent of the Board's transport mitigation regulations. Staffis proposing that the regulations be amended to provide upwinddistricts permitting relief comparable to that granted downwinddistricts by the recent amendments (AB 2783; Chapter 945;Statutes of 1992).

The Board's 1990 transport mitigation regulations required upwindareas to adopt a "no net increase" permitting program for ozoneprecursors for all new or modified stationary sources. This wasconsistent with a statutory mandate that the same program be inplace in serious and severe nonattainment areas. Areas subjectto this restriction are: the Broader Sacramento Area, the SanJoaquin Valley, the South Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco BayArea Air Basin, and parts of the South Central Coast Air Basin.

Between 1988 and 1992 it became apparent that the no net increaserequirement put undue pressure on small businesses. AB 2783relaxed the no net increase requirement by providingapplicability thresholds for serious and severe areas (moderateareas had a 25 ton per year threshold under the original Act).

The amended Act allows districts with moderate, serious, andsevere classifications to permit incrementally smaller stationarysources without mitigating air quality impacts. This permittingrelief is limited to stationary sources with the potential-to-emit of less than 25, 15, and 10 tons per year for moderate,serious and severe areas, respectively. The amendments alsoadded an additional classification--extreme--which retains the nonet increase requirement.

The statutory amendments did not modify the original transportmitigation mandates for did they alter the Board's existingregulations. Thus, the new permitting thresholds in AB 2783 canbe applied only in those areas not subject to transportmitigation requirements.

Staff believe that the economic pressures which prompted the 1992amendments to the Act are present throughout the state. Permitting relief is needed whether small businesses are locatedin upwind or downwind areas.

Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Board add apotential-to-emit threshold of 10 tons per year to the current nonet increase requirement. This would restrict its applicabilityto larger stationary sources in all but the south Coast AirBasin, which is statutorily required to retain a more stringentpermitting program.

SUMMARY AND IMPACTS

Staff's proposal would provide needed permitting relief for smallbusinesses and some large businesses. The amendments could alsoresult in adverse environmental impacts due to unmitigatedemission increases in upwind areas. Staff has estimated thepotential emission increases in the year 2000 to range from 0.1to 2.1 tons per day (total ozone precursors) in each upwind area. These increases are estimated to represent a small fraction ofthe total emission inventories for the affected districts (lessthan one percent). As discussed in the staff report, there areuncertainties in this analysis which may affect the absolutemagnitude of the emission increases, nonetheless, some emissionswould go unmitigated as a result of the amendments.

The staff believe that there are overriding economicconsiderations which outweigh the potential adverse environmentalimpacts. These considerations are primarily economic, reflectingthe state's economic downturn, therefore, staff recommends thatthe Board approve the proposed amendments, recognize that theamendments may result in significant adverse environmentalimpacts, and make a finding of overriding considerations.